• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Report on submissions: Proposed National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking-water

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Submissions

3 General Submission Summary

4 Submissions on Parts 1–4

5 Responses to Questions

Appendix A: Public Notice

Appendix B: Index of Submitters

2 Overview of Submissions

2.1 Summary of submitters’ positions

A total of 82 submissions were received. Table 1 presents a summary of submissions by source category.

Table 1: Breakdown of submissions, by source

Notes: NGO = non–government organisation; LATE= local authority trading enterprise.

Figure 2: Breakdown of submissions, by source

Submissions from government accounted for more than half (54%) of all submissions. Government sector submissions came from three main sources:

• central government
• local government (regional, territorial and unitary)
• public health agencies.

Of the submissions received from the government sector, three were from central government, 12 were from regional councils, 21 were from territorial authorities, three were from unitary authorities, five were from public health agencies and one was from a Crown Research Institute.

There were only four submissions from water suppliers. Given the content of the proposal, this number may appear low. However, it should be recognised that community water supplies in New Zealand are largely operated by local government, particularly territorial authorities, from whom we had a number of submissions (21).

2.2 Key themes analysis

The key themes analysis was compiled from all submissions and is broken into three parts:

• The position of submitters is outlined in section 2.2.1.
• General key themes are summarised in section 2.2.2.
• Key themes on specific submissions on Parts 1 to 4 are summarised in section 2.2.3.

2.2.1 Position of submitters

Submissions were grouped into four categories (oppose, not stated, conditional support, support) according to their position on the proposal. Submissions that did not state their position were only attributed a position where this was obvious from the submission’s content and tone. Where the position of a submission was not obvious, submissions were categorised as ‘not stated’.

Figure 3 shows the breakdown of submissions, by position.

Figure 3: Breakdown of submissions, by position

The breakdown of submissions in Figure 3 shows an almost equal split between those that oppose the proposal (41%), and those that support (4%) or conditionally support (34% the proposal. A significant number of submissions were grouped in the ‘not stated’ category (21%).

2.2.2 General key themes

The general key themes identified during the analysis of submissions are presented in Table 2. Key themes derived from specific submissions on Parts 1 to 4 of the proposed NES are summarised in section 2.2.3.

Table 2: General key themes: summary

Need for a national environmental standard (NES)

Many submitters questioned the need for an NES for human drinking–water sources. Submitters argued that:

• existing legislative provisions are sufficient to protect human drinking–water sources
• there is no justification for the NES because there is no evidence of health threats posed by contaminated water in New Zealand
• agencies are already (or should be) practising the methods specified by the NES.

Consideration of alternatives

Many submitters considered that the objectives of the NES would be better met by other methods. The main alternative suggestions were:

• amendments to the RMA – submitters specifically mentioned amendments to sections 6, 7, 70, 104 and 107
• non–regulatory approaches, mainly in the form of guidance
• development of a national policy statement (NPS).

Support for the general intent of the proposal

Most submitters, regardless of their position on the content of the standard, supported the general intent of protecting drinking–water sources. Many submitters acknowledged the public health importance of protecting drinkingwater sources, or saw the value of the multi–barrier approach. Even those who disagreed with the approach of the NES often expressed general support for the intent behind the proposal of protecting public health.

Process

A large number of submitters expressed dissatisfaction with the development and consultation process. These concerns could be broken down into three main areas:

• lack of supporting information – in particular, the lack of a full cost–benefit analysis and information on catchment definition were highlighted as limiting stakeholders’ ability to comment on the implications of the NES
• lack of stakeholder involvement – some submitters commented that important stakeholder groups had not been adequately consulted, including landowners and tangata whenua
• lack of opportunity for further involvement – the NES development process was criticised for not including a further submissions or hearings phase to allow submitters to comment on a final draft, and a number of submitters requested an opportunity to comment on the final legally drafted wording of the NES.

Definition – drinking–water catchment

Many submitters saw the definition of “catchment” in the NES as crucial to its implications. Submitters said the interpretation of what constitutes a catchment would strongly influence how the NES affected their activities; for example, by defining the extent of catchments that require assessment, or the amount of land where activities may be affected.

Definitions

Many submitters said that a clearer definition of key terms was required to guide implementation of the NES and to provide more certainty. Terms commonly mentioned included “treatment”, “periodic assessment” and “unauthorised activity”.

Community thresholds

Opinions were divided on the appropriateness of the proposed community size threshold (more than 25 people for at least 60 days of the year). Some submitters considered this threshold to be appropriate. Others thought it was too low and suggested a range of alternatives.

Roles and responsibilities

A number of submitters said there was a need to clarify roles and responsibilities for different functions under the NES. Water suppliers, local government and health authorities were mentioned in particular. Several submitters said it was important that the NES be clear about health authority functions and did not duplicate health authority responsibilities. The need for harmonisation with the proposed Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and Drinking–water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ) was also emphasised.

Cost of implementation

Many submitters stated that the NES would be costly to implement. Costs identified included monitoring, consent application and assessment, and possible restrictions on activities in drinking–water catchments. Some were concerned about the cost implications for small rural communities. Many expressed a concern that despite an increase in costs there would be little benefit from the NES.

Diffuse and cumulative effects

Many submitters were concerned that the NES would be used to regulate diffuse (non–point source) discharges. Submitters argued that the proposed NES:

• is not a suitable tool to regulate these land uses that cause diffuse discharges
• does not recognise the complexity associated with monitoring and managing the effects of diffuse discharges.

A number of submitters were uncertain about how and whether cumulative effects would be managed under the proposed NES. Some considered that technical guidance needs to be provided on how to consider cumulative effects.

Implementation

A number of submitters raised questions about the implementation of various parts of the proposed NES. These included:

• the extent of monitoring required to satisfy the Part 2 of the proposed NES
• consent processes
• timeframes for implementation.

2.2.3 Key themes, Parts 1–4

Key themes derived from specific comments on parts 1 to 4 of the proposed NES are summarised in Table 3. For more detail on these themes, see chapter 4.

Table 3: Summary of key themes, Part 1–4

Part 1: Resource consents

Most of the submitters who made specific comments on Part 1 were concerned about resourcing Part 1 requirements. The majority of these considered there would be an increased workload for water suppliers from being involved with an increased number of resource consent applications and determining how they might be affected.

Some were concerned about how Part 1 would be implemented. Submitters argued that a conservative interpretation of this Part by a consent authority (especially with respect to the interpretation of “effects”) would lead to inappropriate restriction of development within communities.

Some submitters made a number of suggestions on how public health agencies, legislation and tools interact with the NES. Some suggested involving public health agencies in the consent process, and using water supply public health risk management plans to assess impacts on water supplies.

Part 2: Assessments

Resourcing implications was the largest single issue for Part 2 submitters, most of whom argued that Part 2 would require increased monitoring effort and plan changes.

A number of submitters questioned the need for Part 2, arguing that Part 2 duplicates existing legislative requirements and would not change the current approach. Legislative requirements considered duplicated included:

• section 35 of the RMA
• Local Government Act sanitary assessment requirements
• public health risk management plan catchment risk assessments.

Many submitters were concerned that the term “periodically assess” does not provide any guidance on the frequency or quality of assessment, and considered that the term needs to be defined.

Some submitters highlighted the fact that linking the effects of permitted activities and water quality is likely to be difficult due to the complexity of the systems involved.

Some submitters were unclear about which agencies would be responsible for the Part 2 requirements, and recommended that roles and responsibilities for undertaking periodic assessment and defining drinking–water catchments under Part 2 be better defined.

Part 3: Resource consent conditions

The biggest concern to submitters in Part 3 was the legality of the requirements. Some argued that Part 3 is ultra vires [Beyond one’s legal power or authority.] because it:

• forces consent holders to admit liability
• forces consent holders to provide information which may then be used to prosecute them
• requires notification of a third party.

Some submitters also questioned the need for Part 3 of the proposal, arguing that the requirements are being undertaken already, that there are better mechanisms for achieving Part 3, or that Part 3 duplicates existing Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act (CDEMA) requirements.

Some submitters argued that Part 3 would not be able to be effectively monitored or enforced because:

• councils cannot be aware of all “unauthorised discharges”
• consent holders may not be aware of “unauthorised events” occurring
• it is likely that many consent holders would not report these events to water suppliers.

A number of submitters recommended amendments to the notification mechanism, including:

• requiring the consent holder to notify the consent authority and public health agency as well as the water supplier
• requiring notification of the water supplier in the event that routine water quality monitoring by the consent holder or the consent authority indicates there is a problem.

Part 4: Water take consent conditions

Many submitters expressed major reservations about Part 4 of the standard, and a large number questioned the need for Part 4. They considered that it duplicates existing requirements under other legislation, particularly:

• the Health Act and proposed amendments
• Civil Defence and Emergency Management legislation
• public health risk management plans.

Submitters also questioned the appropriateness of these requirements within an RMA framework.

The definition of “appropriate action” was another issue commonly raised. In particular, submitters were concerned about including the wording “turning off the supply” in this part, and stressed the importance of maintaining a water supply, even if it is not potable, for sanitary and fire–fighting purposes.

Submitters were also concerned about who would decide on what was an appropriate action: health authorities, water suppliers or consent authorities.